2013 (8) TMI 943

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aring NIL income. The case was selected for security by issuing noticeunder section 143(2) and 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessment wascompleted under section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee has estimated asum of Rs. 25,43,17,766/- towards sub-contract expenses. Though the sumof Rs. 28,81,420/- was deducted at source as tax, it was remitted to theGovernment account on 7.4.2009. The assessee claimed that theamendment to section 40(a)(ia) made by the Finance Act, 2010 w.e.f.1.4.2010 requiring the payment to be made on or before the due date undersection 139(1) was retrospective and therefore, applicable to the assessee. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officerdenied the claim of the assessee relying on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pplicable fromassessment year 2010-11 and subsequent assessment years. 3. The learned CIT(A) should have recognized that the intention oflegislature from the Notes on clauses and Memorandumexplaining the provisions of Finance Bill, 2010 does notparticularly indicate any relaxation in the provisionsretrospectively from assessment year 2005-06 onwards. 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the MumbaiSpecial 'B' Bench in the case of Bharathi Shipyard vs. DCIT,Circle 3(1), (ITA.No.2404/Mum/2009 dated 9.9.2011) held thatthe amendment brought in by assessment year 2010-11 andthe same cannot be held to be retrospective from assessmentyear 2005-06. 5. Any other ground(s) that may be urged at the time ofhearing.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... bringing out section 40(a)(ia) is the augmentation of the TDScollections/compliance. The fact that this provision is still continuing in theAct, proves that the Parliament did not consider it expedient to remove thevigour of section 40(a)(ia) projecting any so-called hardship, which is onlythe side effect in the attainment of the larger goal of augmentation ofcompliance of TDS provision. 8. The learned A.R. relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the case of Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 677 (S.C.)in support of his contention that the amendment having retrospective effectfrom assessment year 2005-06. In this case, the question before the Hon'bleSupreme Court was whether such proviso inserted by the Finance....